Talk:Tranz Am/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rhain1999 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Minor notes below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Tranz Am gameplay.gif is far too large, per NFCC#3. I also don't quite understand why it is in .gif format, but I can let that slide.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * File:Tranz Am gameplay.gif is far too large, per NFCC#3. I also don't quite understand why it is in .gif format, but I can let that slide.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I feel as though the semicolon in the final Gameplay paragraph should be a colon  instead.
 * Added JAG  UAR   17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen Computer and Video Games referred to as CVG quite frequently in these articles about older games—was this the common name for the magazine back then? I don't have a problem with it, but I've noticed a trend, and thought I'd ask.
 * Upon closer inspection I think it was known fully as Computer and Video Games back in the 80s, with more of their recent issues from the 2000s being abbreviated to CVG. It's known as "CVG" in the majority of articles, but I've switched to the full name now JAG  UAR   17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Link Popular Computing Weekly.
 * Done JAG  UAR   17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * References:
 * Add VNU as the publisher of Personal Computer Games.
 * John Gilbert is the author of the Sinclair User article.
 * Sinclair User should be italicised.
 * Link Computer and Video Games, and add Future plc as the publisher.
 * Link Popular Computing Weekly, and add Sunshine Publications as the publisher.
 * Add Argus Specialist Publications as the publisher of Home Computing Weekly.
 * Link Crash, and add Newsfield Publications as the publisher. I also think that Graham Stafford is the author.
 * Link Your Computer (in the reference), and add IPC Electrical-Electronic Press as the publisher.
 * Done all of the above. I couldn't check them off one by one as it messed the numbering sequence up! JAG  UAR   17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This one has even fewer things to fix than the last one! As usual, you've done a great job with this; my only real concerns are regarding an image and the references, and they're quite minor. If you disagree with any of my points, please let me know. It's nice to see that you're working on Ultimate/Rare's games outside of the Rare Replay topic, too! – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 03:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review once again, ! I've addressed all of the above. I should remember to use Computer and Video Games full name in older articles whenever possible. This is among the shortest articles I've worked on, but rest assured as I progress through the Ultimate list, they'll get longer. It's games like these that were literally developed in people's bedrooms, so that's why there's little content on development out there! I like working on Ultimate's games on the side, the next on my list is one from 1985 which has a more coverage than this game. It's tempting to write everything when you have the sources! JAG  UAR'   17:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing everything so quickly! It's a shame that there's not much development information, but I guess it's understandable, and you certainly do a great job with the information available. I've just taken another look at the article—other than very minor things (that I'll fix myself), it looks good! Here you go: . – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)